Oh, by the way, Fedex is a "Gun-Free" workplace, so for those individuals pointing out that "no good guy with a gun stopped this", by definition a good guy would have obeyed the rules and as such would have been unable to stop the shooter / defend his fellow workers. Also the "Guns Everywhere" law doesn't go into effect until July 1, 2014, but don't let that deter the derp.

So about as effective as the usual mass shooting, then. Seems to pretty much always be 0 or 1 dead after this kind of shiat (the 1 being the gunman himself, more often by his own hand than the cops').

We've had, what, like one or two in the last decade where the shooter actually knew how to shoot things?

Oh... wait, sorry, I mean OH NO MASS SHOOTINGS ARE SUCH A COMMON OCCURRENCE PRESENTING A HIGH RISK OF DEATH TO EVERY AMERICAN CLEARLY THE ONLY SOLUTION TO IMPROVE SECURITY MUST INVOLVE SACRIFICING SIGNIFICANT LIBERTY.

// Not that I'm opposed to many gun control measures, but really, mass shootings are like the one thing that unarguably doesn't support gun-control arguments on either side in any way. It'd be like advocating changing how electricity is distributed because of people getting struck by lightning.

Here is my proposal. It lets people have guns, keeps the government from intruding on your personal life, and adds some accountability to the mix.

If you want a gun, you need 2 people to vouch for you, that you are a responsible person, stable, and they believe you are trustworthy enough to have a gun. It could be any 2 people who are not immediate family.

Then you get your gun(s).

However, if you do something irresponsible with them, like lose them, commit a crime, accidently put a bullet through the neighbors house, or gun down your local fedex facility, the people who vouched for you face a penalty. Figure a few thousand dollar fine or a few weekends in the clink. Enough to encourage them to keep tabs on you and raise the horn if you start going off the reservation, but not so severe that nobody would ever consider risking vouching for someone else.

Now, at any point during your gun ownership, one of the people vouching for you can go to the cops and say, "hey, i don't really trust this guy anymore\am not friends with him anymore\whatever" the cops then contact the other person, make sure that he is still cool with you having them, and then give you a fixed amount of time to replace that person. If you can't find someone to vouch for you in say, ...

someradicaldude:Oh, by the way, Fedex is a "Gun-Free" workplace, so for those individuals pointing out that "no good guy with a gun stopped this", by definition a good guy would have obeyed the rules and as such would have been unable to stop the shooter / defend his fellow workers. Also the "Guns Everywhere" law doesn't go into effect until July 1, 2014, but don't let that deter the derp.

No good guy with a gun EVER stops the shooting spree. It wasn't a comment on the "gun free" workplace law. Get a grip.

Bit'O'Gristle:gnosis301: jehovahs witness protection: Funny how people yap about the south while ignoring all the shootings in the utopia known as Chicago.

Get off that cross you nailed yourself to.

/Well if we could figure out how to get gang members to stop spraying rounds into innocent victims while throwing moranic gang signs we would have that problem licked now wouldn't we? You can't fix stupid, and darwin generally assures us that he will continue to weed out genetically flawed citizens.

Here's what I don't get. A frequent refrain of the supporters of the Second Amendment is the whole "an armed society is a polite society" statement, yet they start on about the shootings in Chicago. What are they shooting with? Bananas? Passion fruit? Pointed sticks? One would assume they were using firearms. And I think we can also assume that the shootings arent' just one or two shooters. Ergo, many people are armed. I would argue this invalidates that whole argument. Or is that they are more polite as they are shooting? Does it go along the lines of "I'm dreadfully sorry, but I'm now need to shoot you." Can someone explain this to me? What about Somalia? Damn near everyone is armed over there. How about Afghanistan? Or Iraq? They had a helluva lot of arms over there. Hell, there was a huge market in the middle of Sadr City where you could get any weapon you desire? Are those areas more polite?

someradicaldude:Oh, by the way, Fedex is a "Gun-Free" workplace, so for those individuals pointing out that "no good guy with a gun stopped this", by definition a good guy would have obeyed the rules and as such would have been unable to stop the shooter / defend his fellow workers. Also the "Guns Everywhere" law doesn't go into effect until July 1, 2014, but don't let that deter the derp.

I have said this before, and though some don't agree i don't care. My opinion is as valid as theirs. Here goes.

The guns are out there, there is no getting them back. The world is full of some really farked up people who are just waiting for trigger to set them off to go on a rampage, and kill innocent victims. You have a choice. Choose to be able to defend yourself, and your family / property, or ...choose not to. The police (as i have been one) generally get there too late to do anything about an active shooter. The guy usually guns himself before they get there. So be a victim with NO WAY to defend yourself except cowering like a biatch and hoping not to get shot, or ...running and hiding. Those are your 2 choices.

My daughter is in college, and i bought her a gun to carry in her purse. She now has the option to choose not to be a victim, but...able to defend herself. At least now she has a chance to live, instead of being gunned down like a dog shivering under a table. And isn't it a valid right to be able to defend ourselves? Is there a more natural law that applies to us more? If a guy comes up and slugs you, you are going to use your fists and give him what he just gave you. You're not going to stand there and let him punch you over and over. Why should someone with a gun be any different? In fact, it should be MORE applicable because this person could kill you, not just give you a black eye. The right to defend ourselves is not only a law, its a natural mental stand that one takes in the face of danger.

Hate all you want, but the guns are out there, bought legally or not. The choice to have the ability to defend yourself is totally up to you. If you choose to not have a gun, i totally respect your choice, if you choose to have the ability to defend your life, or other lives, i respect that as well.

fireclown:someradicaldude: Oh, by the way, Fedex is a "Gun-Free" workplace, so for those individuals pointing out that "no good guy with a gun stopped this", by definition a good guy would have obeyed the rules and as such would have been unable to stop the shooter / defend his fellow workers. Also the "Guns Everywhere" law doesn't go into effect until July 1, 2014, but don't let that deter the derp.

This is actually a very good point.

And it is also a good point that no one can point to a single instance where a "good guy" pulled a gun and stopped a mass shooting.

LineNoise:Here is my proposal. It lets people have guns, keeps the government from intruding on your personal life, and adds some accountability to the mix.

If you want a gun, you need 2 people to vouch for you, that you are a responsible person, stable, and they believe you are trustworthy enough to have a gun. It could be any 2 people who are not immediate family.

Then you get your gun(s).

However, if you do something irresponsible with them, like lose them, commit a crime, accidently put a bullet through the neighbors house, or gun down your local fedex facility, the people who vouched for you face a penalty. Figure a few thousand dollar fine or a few weekends in the clink. Enough to encourage them to keep tabs on you and raise the horn if you start going off the reservation, but not so severe that nobody would ever consider risking vouching for someone else.

Now, at any point during your gun ownership, one of the people vouching for you can go to the cops and say, "hey, i don't really trust this guy anymore\am not friends with him anymore\whatever" the cops then contact the other person, make sure that he is still cool with you having them, and then give you a fixed amount of time to replace that person. If you can't find someone to vouch for you in say, 2 weeks, the cops get to sit on your stash until you do.

If both people decide they no longer want to vouch for you, the cops get to sit on your stash until you find 2 new people, and are cleared by a shrink.

I knew there was a reason why I had you farkied as "Subscribe to newsletter".Your plan might unfairly discriminate against antisocial loners, though. Maybe that's by design, but not sure if constitutional.

A great way for gun owners to test their own sanity would be to ask themselves if they would give up all their guns if it meant they could prevent someone from being murdered. I have a feeling many of them would not give them up.

rebelyell2006:willfullyobscure: MBrady: tommyl66: Another responsible gun owner in the land of the free and the home of the Braves...

show me ONE gun shooting where the shooter was a legal gun owner who was level headed, sane, and was legally able to own them.

Show me ONE car accident where both drivers were sober, legally licensed, insured and didn't make any mistakes or take any risks.

Well, this is Georgia, so I am sure there are plenty of instances of multiple-car accidents after someone hits a deer, or a fallen limb from a tree, etc. Or an at-fault pedestrian or bicyclist starts an accident, etc.

In the entire state of Ohio in 1895, there were only two cars on the road, and the drivers of these two cars crashed into each other. There was no mention of drugs or alcohol and there were no licenses or insurance available at the time

d23:fireclown: someradicaldude: Oh, by the way, Fedex is a "Gun-Free" workplace, so for those individuals pointing out that "no good guy with a gun stopped this", by definition a good guy would have obeyed the rules and as such would have been unable to stop the shooter / defend his fellow workers. Also the "Guns Everywhere" law doesn't go into effect until July 1, 2014, but don't let that deter the derp.

This is actually a very good point.

And it is also a good point that no one can point to a single instance where a "good guy" pulled a gun and stopped a mass shooting.

I'm not a gun fondler by nature, but isn't the Pearl County school shooting the go-to example of that? IIRC the principal produced a pistol, killed the shooter and saved several lives. I'm sure someone has the whole story.

Cpl.D:farking hell. There's no end in sight, and I'm way sick of this shiat.

You are absolutely correct - there is no end in sight because there will be no end to this because there is always money in this.From the Brady Campaign-Every day, 282 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides & suicide attempts, accidents, and police intervention.Every day, 86 people die from gun violence: 32 are murdered; 51 kill themselves; 2 die accidentally; 1, intent unknown.Every day, 196 are shot and survive: 140 shot in an assault; 10 survive a suicide attempt; 43 are shot accidentally, 2 are shot in a police intervention. More uplifting info available athttp://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/GunDeathandInjury Stat Sheet3YearAverageFINAL.pdf

If you thought we would get sick of the murder of children and the elderly you were mistaken. Between the lobbyists, bought and paid for politicians and the bought and paid for media, there is no free air left for sanity.

Bit'O'Gristle:I have said this before, and though some don't agree i don't care. My opinion is as valid as theirs. Here goes.

The guns are out there, there is no getting them back. The world is full of some really farked up people who are just waiting for trigger to set them off to go on a rampage, and kill innocent victims. You have a choice. Choose to be able to defend yourself, and your family / property, or ...choose not to. The police (as i have been one) generally get there too late to do anything about an active shooter. The guy usually guns himself before they get there. So be a victim with NO WAY to defend yourself except cowering like a biatch and hoping not to get shot, or ...running and hiding. Those are your 2 choices.

My daughter is in college, and i bought her a gun to carry in her purse. She now has the option to choose not to be a victim, but...able to defend herself. At least now she has a chance to live, instead of being gunned down like a dog shivering under a table. And isn't it a valid right to be able to defend ourselves? Is there a more natural law that applies to us more? If a guy comes up and slugs you, you are going to use your fists and give him what he just gave you. You're not going to stand there and let him punch you over and over. Why should someone with a gun be any different? In fact, it should be MORE applicable because this person could kill you, not just give you a black eye. The right to defend ourselves is not only a law, its a natural mental stand that one takes in the face of danger.

Hate all you want, but the guns are out there, bought legally or not. The choice to have the ability to defend yourself is totally up to you. If you choose to not have a gun, i totally respect your choice, if you choose to have the ability to defend your life, or other lives, i respect that as well.

Bit'O'Gristle:I have said this before, and though some don't agree i don't care. My opinion is as valid as theirs. Here goes.

The guns are out there, there is no getting them back. The world is full of some really farked up people who are just waiting for trigger to set them off to go on a rampage, and kill innocent victims. You have a choice. Choose to be able to defend yourself, and your family / property, or ...choose not to. The police (as i have been one) generally get there too late to do anything about an active shooter. The guy usually guns himself before they get there. So be a victim with NO WAY to defend yourself except cowering like a biatch and hoping not to get shot, or ...running and hiding. Those are your 2 choices.

My daughter is in college, and i bought her a gun to carry in her purse. She now has the option to choose not to be a victim, but...able to defend herself. At least now she has a chance to live, instead of being gunned down like a dog shivering under a table. And isn't it a valid right to be able to defend ourselves? Is there a more natural law that applies to us more? If a guy comes up and slugs you, you are going to use your fists and give him what he just gave you. You're not going to stand there and let him punch you over and over. Why should someone with a gun be any different? In fact, it should be MORE applicable because this person could kill you, not just give you a black eye. The right to defend ourselves is not only a law, its a natural mental stand that one takes in the face of danger.

Hate all you want, but the guns are out there, bought legally or not. The choice to have the ability to defend yourself is totally up to you. If you choose to not have a gun, i totally respect your choice, if you choose to have the ability to defend your life, or other lives, i respect that as well.

Gun buyback programs invalidate your entire post. You have anything else to share with the class?

someradicaldude:This is simply what they call "Tuesday" in Chicago, whereas it is a very rare occurrence in Georgia.

/Know the airport (McCollum Field) and Fedex Building well, drive past them all the time.

Are you kidding me? They just arrested 5 gang members in Kennesaw for a shooting out there. Every time I turn on the news there's somebody getting blasted in Cobb County.

That's why I never leave the perimeter. Not only will you get shot if you go there, the likelihood of being shot in an Applebee's is significantly higher than in the city. Imagine the horror. Your friends and family knowing that you go to Applebee's.

I think we can all agree that anti-social loaners aren't the type of people who should have guns. I mean if you can't find 2 god damn people to say that they trust you not to go all Rambo at any moment, everyone is probably best served by you being unarmed.

d23:fireclown: someradicaldude: Oh, by the way, Fedex is a "Gun-Free" workplace, so for those individuals pointing out that "no good guy with a gun stopped this", by definition a good guy would have obeyed the rules and as such would have been unable to stop the shooter / defend his fellow workers. Also the "Guns Everywhere" law doesn't go into effect until July 1, 2014, but don't let that deter the derp.

This is actually a very good point.

And it is also a good point that no one can point to a single instance where a "good guy" pulled a gun and stopped a mass shooting.

Muta:Since someone always says, "Doesn't Chicago/DC/Maryland have some of thestrictest gun laws in the country" when there is a shooting in Chicago, DC or Maryland, I guess it isrelevant to ask...

Doesn't Georgia have some of the most permissive gun laws in the country?

I think you just proved the point that gun laws, restrictive or not, are ineffective in preventing this kind of thing. That is the whole argument from pro-second amendment folks. Laws only impact those willing to follow them. I'd argue that people who commit mass shootings aren't thinking about gun laws when they act.

KingKauff:upndn: What qualifies as a mass shooting? How many people must be shot or is it how many shots are fired? Do people have to die? Hell, it took me half my life to figure out the difference between "a couple" and "a few". I always thought "a mass" is more than "a couple" or "a few" but in regards to shootings, I'm not so sure.

Personally, I'm for guns everywhere. I think bars should have a community gun pile at the door and you can just grab a piece to hold why you enjoy your beverage. I seriously want everyone draped in guns at all times so when people keep getting shot I can stop hearing about how more guns is always the answer.

People are getting shot all the time anyway, so it's not like it makes a difference one way or the other. It's a level of violence we've just accepted.

Bit'O'Gristle:dittybopper: Babwa Wawa: KingKauff: When the first mass shooting in a bar or church happens, THEN you can spew the "South-hate"

But I thought the whole point of that law is to prevent mass shootings.

Armed society being polite society and all that sh*t.

I'm willing to bet that:

1. It's illegal to possess a firearm in that area of the airport, and/or2. It's against FedEx rules to be armed on the job.

So in this case, it's really about an unarmed pocket of society being vulnerable.

In fact, if you go back and look at the vast majority of mass shootings, they usually tend to happen where guns aren't allowed: Schools, government buildings, and businesses where carrying is forbidden, and jurisdictions where carrying is often quite restricted or banned completely*.

But then, you *KNEW* that already, didn't you?

*The last "no-issue" state in the US was Illinois. They are now "Shall-Issue".

/i could not agree more. Mass shootings are generally at "soft targets" where most if not all the victims aren't capable of defending themselves against a firearm wielding wack job. That is why the shooters pick them. You wouldn't walk into a bank were all the tellers / public is armed and try to rob it. You would be riddled in seconds. They go for soft targets to kill many people before killing themselves. They are cowards, and take the cowardly way out by killing innocent defenseless victims.

yeah... like military bases.

Look dude, no matter how much you want it, we're not going to arm this society to the teeth just because you people have these weird gun fantasies.